MSB,Alexander has already addressed the issue of birth control, so I'll not belabor it here. However, I too can remember the days before modern contraception and there was a great deal less choice about becoming pregnant, especially for couples in a fulfilling marriage.
I was thinking about this yesterday evening and wondering, if pregnancy was so hard to avoid, why both sets of my grandparents only had two children each. This suggests three choices. Either there were sufficient means of contraception (one set died in their 80's about 10 or so years ago, and the other, one dieing younger in her 50's the other only a few years ago in his early 80's), both sets considered abstinence yet maintained a loving relationship (assumption), or each set found ways to satisfy each other's physical gratification without inducing intercourse.
I did not mean to infer that the position of staying home with one's children to see to their upbringing is not a noble profession. My mother stayed at home almost until the last of my brother's was scooted off to college. However, our family didn't enjoy so many of the wonderous things it seems other families do. My parents made due with what they had, and are now in a position to enjoy their retirement years because they made plans for it early on.
I believe this is what it boils down to, how one chooses to use income resources early in a relationship. It is all about choice, imo. There is no such thing as an accident (again, imo).
Compensation for the stay at home wife/mother (until such laws exist to address them) would seem to me to be worked out by both parties in the relationship. Compensations should have been attended to early on. At this stage of the game for some, it is a bit late. |
